Comments on: CMHC on leaky condos: no ‘duty of care’

By: SoldTooSoon

SoldTooSoon — Mon, 21 May 2007 19:38:00 +0000

But, but...that's what the acronym stands for: CoMmitted to Helping Canadians!

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: grant

grant — Fri, 18 May 2007 14:51:00 +0000

Why do investors sell call options? Why are they willing to give up future capital gains in return for money now?A few possibilities:1) they may obtain much better than market prices using this method2) they obtain money now for something they only have to sell in the future... "now" money is worth more than "future" money3) there is the possibility that the prospective purchaser will default, leaving the owner with a windfall deposit4) tenants will probably treat the property a lot better if they will eventually own it.5) their financial master plan may involve them selling that property in a few years regardless6) ... the most obvious : they don't expect particularly great capital appreciation going forward

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: patriotz

patriotz — Fri, 18 May 2007 12:38:00 +0000

Hey: Craigslist has a "rent to own".That's selling a call option on real estate.Why do investors sell call options? Why are they willing to give up future capital gains in return for money now?

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: grant

grant — Fri, 18 May 2007 08:49:00 +0000

Drachen wow you are humourless, I guess this topic weighs so heavily on you it prevents you from cracking a smile.My matchbook-cover law education (which accounts for nearly nothing) says the CHMC is not only un-responsible for the quality of the homes that people build & buy, but in fact, the CMHC has no way to even FORCE builders to make better homes. Since you want "someething useful" in these comments how about YOU refer to legal precedent that says otherwise?Personally I think people are suing CMHC because there's some possibility they'll get money and damn the righteousness of it.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: aetakeo

aetakeo — Thu, 17 May 2007 22:53:00 +0000

Oh my god. And - a one bedroom apartment downtown, where you can rent the *bedroom* for $695 ($750 for a couple), and there's someone in the livingroom.LinkI mean. HOLY COW. Really?

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: aetakeo

aetakeo — Thu, 17 May 2007 22:44:00 +0000

Hey: Craigslist has a "rent to own".Link

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: M-

M- — Thu, 17 May 2007 22:21:00 +0000

Sorry, I don't know where I was going with that comment. I just started rambling on. Unless you're capable of doing an inspection yourself, ALWAYS make offers subject to inspection!

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: M-

M- — Thu, 17 May 2007 22:19:00 +0000

In every case of leaky condo that I've taken the time to look into, it has always come down to one thing:Shoddy workmanship.Not the building code, but good old crappy workmanship that wasn't caught/enforced by an inspector.Well, there was one case that I've come across of outright fraud, where excessive condensation was occuring inside a wall because the builder took the insulation out after the inspector signed off on it, to use it on another project.What I learned when I bought my place, and was reminded of while recently helping a relative (who really wants to buy now, despite my advice to the contrary) is that sometimes, realtors lie. Other times, they don't know and didn't bother to ask, or they're just completely oblivious.Of the four buildings I did quick walk-around exterior tours of recently for my relative, all 4 were described as problem-free buildings, three were great Landmark Arms buildings, never a problem, will last forever!...But three of the four had had some walls replaced with new wall assemblies, ongoing work ("that's just water ingress, a little moisture, it's not a leaky condo")... Ugh, (some) realtors make me sick. At least my relative won't be buying into any of the three leakers.She made an offer on the fourth building, which I tentatively OKayed, but her offer was a little under asking, the only offer, and the owner refused to sell for any less than $6K *over* ask. That unit has since been taken off the market because the owner couldn't get the price he wanted.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: vineland

vineland — Thu, 17 May 2007 22:15:00 +0000

if this government has been doing as good a job on regulating building codes as it has been regulating drivers of farm workers, we are really in for a treat.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: patriotz

patriotz — Thu, 17 May 2007 20:59:00 +0000

CMHC has no mandate or obligation to enforce building standards. Isn't that obvious? You'd might as well blame CDIC for letting a bank make a car loan to someone who bought a lemon.Put the blame where is belongs, with provincial and local governments who are responsible for writing and enforcing building codes and consumer protection legislation.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)